Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kadeton

  1. Sentinel spam by itself is fine, you can tank the damage. It's the Wind Spirits that really mess up the Beastclaws. Anything that blocks our movement but won't let us charge is really difficult to deal with.
  2. All characters from the Warhammer Fantasy days should have been dropped entirely, leaving room for new characters to be created. Coming up with endless half-baked reasons why various people survived the death of the Old World and then just mucked about for tens of thousands of years totally undermines any effort to make the lore stand on its own merits. This is especially true for Ultimate Boomer god characters like Teclis and Nagash, and especially especially true for Sigmar becoming a proxy for the Emperor of Mankind. It's like they somehow utilised negative creativity. Kill them all and start again, and take Gotrek with you.
  3. Controversial counter-opinion: Age of Sigmar has always been a skirmish game, just one where many of the people doing the skirmishing happen to be gods and monsters. The lore often describes actual armies - hundreds of thousands of troops waging war over vast battlefields. The actual games are like fifty dudes having a punch-up in a parking lot.
  4. Controversial ones, huh? The impact of ranged weapons in AoS should be significantly reduced. If 40K has taught us anything, it's that two armies shooting at each other is incredibly dull. Close combat is where the drama and excitement of the game happens, and should always be the main focus. Army selection should be severely limited, with each force having ~10 unit choices or less. This would keep them thematic, focused, and visually and mechanically coherent. Instead of having a few armies each with a massive selection of units (most of which are terrible), it would be better to have a massive selection of thematic armies. As a starting point, take every subfaction from an existing battletome and split it into its own thematic list which doesn't share any units with any other subfaction. Allow them to ally or coalition with each other if you must. Edit: I had a third opinion here, but it was a bit too controversial.
  5. Very impressed with that new Vampire Lord! I'm not too fond of the bald-headed vampire look in general, but she's making it work.
  6. Fascinating topic, and an interesting discussion. For me, there needs to be a strong alignment between the amount of detail on the model and the amount of time and effort I feel justified putting into it. The Cursed City heroes are some of the most visually dense models I've worked on, but it felt exactly right because I'd already decided to put 10-15 hours into each one and really lavish attention on them. Out of the same box, the Ulfenwatch skeletons were models that I was going to batch paint and spend less than an hour on each, and their level of detail was similarly just right for that. While the amount of fine detail on the model is important, I think the individual painter's attitude towards the task has a lot more to do with whether it's "too much". For me, the secret when sitting down to paint something has been to try to pick a model that suits the mood I'm in at that moment - something simple if I'm painting to relax, or something more intricate if I feel like really getting stuck into a painting challenge. When I don't get that right, it's really noticeable; I'll get frustrated if the model is too much, and bored if it's not enough. It's been a real journey to get to the point where I can recognise that and say "This isn't what I need right now," put that model aside for the time being, and pick up something more suited to my mood. It helps (in a sense) that I've still got quite a variety of unpainted models to work with...
  7. You know what I want to see in the next book? It's really petty, but I want the Beastclaw units to gain Gulping Bites, like all the Gutbusters units have. Currently it's like the Beastclaw culture has some formal code of conduct where it's considered impolite to bite people in combat. Giving equal-opportunity bites to all the Ogors would help to tie them together thematically.
  8. I'm enjoying the way that this edition has made me re-think my tactics and my tournament list. I've rebuilt my army to focus more on survival and securing objectives, and my play focuses more on positioning rather than running headlong at the enemy and smashing them to pieces - or at least smashing at the right time against carefully chosen targets, rather than as soon as possible against whatever's in the way. The ability to actually keep tough models alive under intense and focused damage has really improved the game for me.
  9. Material is probably the biggest consideration for me (obviously price is a factor too). HIPS plastic is just so far beyond resin and metal in terms of how nice it is to work with. Wyrd Miniatures (Malifaux) have been making better plastic models than GW for some years now.
  10. What, the tactic where you have to get two units into your opponent's territory - you're spending 320 points for that? Sir, let me introduce you to my good friend Hrothgorn...
  11. I guess it's sort of counter-intuitive, but clubs are one of the best ways to overcome heavy armour. Armour is effective against blades and arrows because it distributes the (relatively small) force that would normally exert tremendous pressure via an edge or point over a larger area - a bludgeoning weapon already delivers its (relatively large) force over a large area, and armour does very little to mitigate the damage it does.
  12. Based on those books, what kind of changes are you expecting? It will be interesting to see whether GW continues down the path of simplified/streamlined warscrolls with minimal special rules, or whether that's mainly a Stormcast thing as the "starter" army. Ogor warscrolls already aren't especially complex, for the most part. I'm really happy with where the Beastclaws are in the meta at the moment, so there's not much I'd like to see changed. But I certainly wouldn't be surprised by Mournfangs going to a minimum unit size of 4 (since that's what comes in the box, which seems to be the trend). I'd prefer if they also counted as more than two models for objectives, and got +1 when rolling for impact hits, but that's just wishlisting. It would also be nice if the Huskard on Stonehorn got something to make him a more worthwhile choice, but I also wouldn't be shocked if Frostlords got knocked down to a 4+ save.
  13. ... Huh. Yeah, interesting wording on that ability. You can apply the bonus attack in any combat phase, and it lasts until your next hero phase. So if you applied it to a unit in your own turn, your opponent's turn, and your opponent's double turn, by the end of that the unit would have +3 attacks to its melee weapons. (All three bonuses would then end in your hero phase.) I can't see any other way to read that rule, honestly. It doesn't feel like an intended effect, but it's not at all unclear.
  14. "New customers are our life's blood," is a positive-tone way of saying "We have trouble maintaining customer satisfaction in the long term." It's a clear acknowledgement that the underlying business practice is churn and burn. Burning out old customers is what generates churn. If you attract new customers while retaining old ones, you're not churning - that's just growth. Does anybody ever actually have "all the models they want"? Or do they just keep purchasing models until they either can't afford more or they start feeling that they're not getting enough value for their money? Yeah, yet again - I'm not saying GW will financially suffer due to their chosen approach. It's a totally sustainable way to generate income, as long as you can keep attracting new customers as fast or faster than you burn out the old ones, which GW clearly can. What it does inevitably lead to, though, is a wake of burned-out grognards that are bitter about the way the company has treated them, and people whose gaming buddies have had to move to other games or dropped out of the hobby entirely. You might say "Yeah, but they don't matter" - and they don't matter to GW's bottom line, that's true. But they do strongly influence the community, and that underlying resentment towards GW is the fundamental basis for most of the toxicity in GW-oriented gaming communities.
  15. Of course. As I said, it's a business decision. I never said it wouldn't work. I think what you might be losing sight of in your incredulity about why people want a better value proposition is that the people asking for better value are the customers GW is, or will be, losing. Their business model is built on getting new players to replace them, burn those players out as well, get new ones, and so on. Endless churn. That works just fine from the business perspective (at least, it has so far) but it's awful from the perspective of those individual players who are on the verge of abandoning the game. GW won't miss them. But perhaps you might be able to see how other players in the community will?
  16. People might be saying "I want more free stuff!" but that's not an expression of entitlement. Rather, what a lot of these complaints actually mean is "This game is too expensive for the value I get from it." That's not a sudden change due to the introduction of W+, it comes up every time prices are increased for any reason. It's a sentiment that gets more intense the more GW squeezes its customers. GW have obviously decided that they can afford to lose the players who are being priced out, by charging those who can still afford it (or who are holding out due to their sunk cost) more. Fair enough, that's a business decision. But the "Give us something for free!" posts are just a symptom of that - it's offering GW a chance to change their policy and improve the value proposition in order to keep those players, rather than lose them to other game systems.
  17. I'm not surprised or offended. I'm just not interested or intrigued. I've seen this stuff before - I'd like some fresh ideas mixed in along with the stale tropes.
  18. I thought the Cathay trailer was really slick and very well crafted. It was impressive for what it was. But... it was so predictable. The faction seems like a thin pastiche of "stuff that Westerners vaguely know about China" - fireworks, terracotta warriors, paper lanterns, junks, Chinese dragons. All of those elements looked awesome on screen, but it didn't bring any new ideas, just the same old stereotypes of Orientalism. I was impressed by the spectacle, but I wasn't interested.
  19. Yeah, that's fair enough. As I said, in that case, put together some army lists that you want to collect, and work out the cost of each. There's not much point working out which army is the cheapest on average (it's Beastclaw Raiders) unless it's an army you would actually buy for yourself. For a (purely hypothetical) example, let's say that you work out that Seraphon have a low average cost. Great! You start thinking about what you'd like to run in Seraphon. The units you really like happen to be the ones with the worst cost-to-points ratio, and the cheap units that are bringing down the average are ones that you have no interest in. Doing all that work for the initial calculation didn't tell you anything useful at all, really - you needed to work out the cost of the army list you wanted, not the faction as a whole, to get a sense of what it would actually cost you to collect that faction.
  20. I'm not sure there's much reason to do this in the general case, trying to get some kind of "points to cost" ratio for an entire faction. The cost that's relevant is for building a specific army that you might actually put on the battlefield - there's no use in knowing that a faction has a super-cheap option if it's one that nobody actually wants to field. I'd start by tracking down some lists for tournament-level armies that have been performing well, and costing those out. Or, if you're thinking more along casual play lines, just writing up some thematic army lists that you'd like to actually paint and play, and tally those. Personally I'd include any Start Collecting or other boxed sets if they get you to your army list at a cheaper price than buying the relevant units individually.
  21. Yes. The invocation is removed from play, but the invocation warscroll remains part of your army, and allows any priests you have to summon that invocation again. While there isn't a rule that explicitly states that an invocation can be summoned again, it's there by implication. 20.3.2 Banishing Invocations makes reference to it: "An invocation cannot be summoned again in the turn that it is removed from play."
  22. To be clear, you don't "take Flaming Weapon as a Spell Lore enhancement". You just take a Spell Lore enhancement - that enhancement allows every wizard in your army to select any additional spell from any of the spell lores available to them.
  23. While not advocating piracy, I think it's worth noting that copyright and copyright infringement are a lot more complicated than "It's illegal." It's extremely jurisdictional: in many countries, it's not illegal at all; in others, it can even be criminal. Both the potential penalties and the actual rate of enforcement vary wildly depending on where you are. Everyone could benefit from being more informed about what copyright law actually states, at least in their own jurisdiction.
  24. Yeah, unfortunately the unit needs to have at least four models before you can include a standard and/or musician. The rule about "1 in every x models" upgrades is 22.3.3. In our next battletome, I wouldn't be surprised if Mournfangs had four models as their minimum size, since the trend seems to be towards the contents of a single box being the basic unit.
  25. Off topic, but: sadly not any more. I had a massive Skaven horde in WHFB but didn't have the heart to convert them to round bases after the End Times. I sold them, which I often regret. But back then, mostly what the Skaven warmachines did was explode! So just a guess from past experience.
  • Create New...