Jump to content

Kadeton

Members
  • Posts

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Kadeton

  1. In terms of the geometry, an objective is a singular point, no? An objective marker indicates where the point lies, but the point itself is the exact centre of the marker. A point has no area. It is impossible for a point to be "within" an area and not also, intrinsically, "wholly within" that same area. I would say that an objective on the edge of your territory is wholly within your territory. If it is on the border between your territory and your opponent's territory, it is wholly within both territories. That might not make intuitive sense, but that's geometry for you.
  2. Probably depends on how argumentative you want to be about the semantics of 'error'. I would say that any discrepancy between the printed content of a battletome and the way the designers intend for that battletome to be played constitutes an error. That can include omissions. It doesn't matter whether the discrepancy comes about as a result of a decision made after the book has been published - the difference between intended play and written rules is still an error. In that context, the battletome not including the Grand Strategy and Battle Tactics that are intended to be played with that army is an error that should be corrected via errata, yes. More pragmatically, I simply want to have all the changes to the way any given army plays to be collated in one document. It's a terrible idea for players to have to reference more than one "source of truth". I don't care if they release the rules in White Dwarf first, and then follow that up by incorporating them into the FAQs in a reasonable timeframe. But I'm not padding out my collection of rulebooks with random magazine issues and having to remember which ones go with which battletomes. That's just poor data management.
  3. There are errata documents for this exact purpose. No reason for it to be in a White Dwarf other than to try to squeeze out that little bit more money from people who don't otherwise buy the magazine. Hold the Line is also "as long as you don't get tabled" for Sons, so that's nice. The current batch of Grand Strategies are very poorly designed. Make the Land Tremble is markedly better, in that you need to do something actively to achieve it, not just survive. The saving grace is that the Bland Strategies will rotate out of play with the next GHB, and hopefully the design team can do better next iteration.
  4. Perhaps I'm missing the nuance of exactly what you're looking for, but this sounds a lot like the Lumineth to me. Elite units with superlative combat skills? Check. Heroes that combine magical aptitude with fighting ability? You bet. They might not have guardian lions and Chinese dragons specifically, but the wind foxes and mountain spirits definitely fit with animist traditions. Plus the whole army has a very Eastern-inspired aesthetic. Maybe with a bit of tweaking, the game already has what you're looking for?
  5. I don't think it's a matter of different-looking units - as you say, there are plenty of those in the game already. What I suspect makes people think the Kruleboys "don't fit" with the existing Orruk range is that they seem to be rendered in a different artistic style. As an example, think about cartoons, which are extremely stylistic - within the context of their own shows, you automatically recognise that Homer Simpson, Shaggy and Sailor Moon are all human beings, but if you stood them next to each other your brain would be telling you that something was really "off" about at least two of them. Ironjawz and Bonesplitterz have always had a highly exaggerated, caricaturish look to them - gigantic bulging muscles, unfeasibly prominent jaws and teeth, massive heads. Kruleboyz have a lot of the same features, but they're not exaggerated to nearly the same degree - they're closer to the more grounded, "realistic" proportions of the orcs of Middle-Earth. That's the disconnect. I'm not saying it's right, but I understand where it's coming from.
  6. Oh for sure, it was brutally overbearing when dealing 6 mortals a shot. The best way to deal with it? Put a little bit of damage on each Thundertusk and drop the damage to d6, and then just ignore them because using a 300+ point model to deal d6 wounds is horribly inefficient.
  7. I'll admit to being quite underwhelmed with that breath attack. It's basically a convoluted way of dealing 1 to 6 mortal wounds, but with a lower average (~2.33) than just a simple 1d6. For dragonfire, that seems resoundingly meh. (Remember the old snowball attack that Thundertusks did in the old Beastclaw codex? It started at 6 mortal wounds, and that was great... but then if you inflicted some damage on them it very quickly dropped to 1d6 and immediately went from awesome to disappointing. This dragonfire is worse than that.)
  8. Short of implementing and maintaining an Elo-style rating system for players globally, it's basically impossible to quantify player skill in any form. Even in an Elo system, the player's choice of army would inherently be a factor in their "skill" rating, since the rating is determined solely by game outcomes. Maybe with enough data points you could start correcting for that and approach some kind of objective "army strength" measurement, but I doubt we'll ever get to the stage where the data is good enough to do that with any decent confidence.
  9. Ah, okay. Yeah, I get that the sample sizes are so small that outliers can heavily skew the data. Not sure that's the best way to account for it - with your rating, if army A is played 50 times and army B is played 100 times, A's winrate would have to be more than twice that of B in order to appear higher on the table, which seems kind of weird. I'd prefer to see some form of normalisation of results. Cool project though!
  10. The Beasts of Chaos should collectively defect and flock to the banner of Kragnos - a far more fitting leader for their faction. They could be the Beasts of Destruction instead. I think the thing that makes me saddest about them is that they were designed to be played centrally around their Herdstone. Now any monster in the game can stroll up and kick it over like a sandcastle.
  11. Heh. I feel like that's more a pragmatic response to Stormcast specifically. And those crossbows are definitely "rule of cool" more than anything else - small crossbows can still hold a phenomenal amount of energy in tension, so there's not much reason to make them massive and unwieldy I guess. I think the main point of cavalry is generally to move fast, whereas those sound slow and careful. So is it just about some of the Kruleboyz not having to get their feet wet? Or just because riding stuff is neat, even if it's not very practical? (If I was designing cavalry for them, I'd go totally the opposite direction - long, narrow stilt-like legs, looking like one of Dali's elephants. Just as impractical, but IMO more fun!) I mean, the post I responded to was asking for a unit akin to Brutes or Nobs, so yeah... at least one person is definitely asking for that. But your idea sounds awesome and I would be totally behind it. Kruleboyz should definitely lean into the skill & cunning approach, not the powerful & heavily armoured - leave that to the Ironjawz.
  12. They're noisy, and bad at concealing themselves and their trail. You can definitely use cavalry to launch a surprise attack (where you suddenly move troops quickly into a position your enemy thought you couldn't get to) but not an ambush (where you hide troops in a position and your enemy doesn't know they're there until they attack).
  13. I feel like the restricted roster is somewhat thematically appropriate, though. The Kruleboyz are swamp-dwelling ambushers - they need to move quickly and quietly through difficult terrain. Cavalry and elite infantry are poorly suited to both swamps and ambushing. The whole idea that every force has to include at least one option of every unit type seems terribly outdated to me. Having a limited thematic selection of roles shapes a more unique playstyle, gives the army a better sense of character and grounds them in their own lore.
  14. Interesting! I'm not sure what the purpose of combining the win rate and % meta into "DKHM rate" is, can you give a bit more detail on what that data point is supposed to indicate? Very surprised that Deepkin seem to be doing so badly (maybe they're still all just spamming eels?), as well as Ironjawz. Kharadrons on par with Blades of Khorne?! What's the reasoning on splitting Warclans into its three variants, and not any of the other battletomes which have similarly strong divisions? I'd be quite interested to see the split between Beastclaw Raiders and regular Mawtribes, for example. Surprised and delighted to see so many Ogor armies though!
  15. Ah cool, thanks for explaining. I see what you mean - you don't have to be as careful with your heroes, for sure. I guess my perspective is a bit different - from the other side, I see being able to go "The enemy's army revolves around that hero, so I'll just kill him," as the low-skill option that rewards being bad at the game. This edition has changed that to "The enemy's army revolves around that hero, and I can't kill him, so I'll have to work out how I can win some other way," and I honestly think that's a far more interesting and challenging proposition. My experience so far has been that bad players with unkillable heroes are pretty easily beaten by good players with a plan that doesn't involve killing those heroes. Hence, skilled play is rewarded.
  16. I totally agree. That would have been much better. However, I still feel that making some heroes survivable is better than making no heroes survivable. We can talk all day about the wonderful possibilities that might have been, but that's not really a valid point of comparison. All we actually have to compare in real terms is how it worked before versus how it works now. Of those two, I prefer how it works now. Issues with the survivability of individual heroes can always be addressed as new battletomes are released, but at least they now have a supporting framework where it's actually possible to make them hard to kill. I'm a bit confused about your position. You seem to be saying that nothing has really changed: some armies could kill monster heroes before and still can, some armies couldn't kill them before and still can't. If the situation is more or less the same as it was, what's the issue?
  17. Agreed, the mechanic being fun is extremely important, and currently I'd say it does make things a bit grindy. I think a corollary question is also needed, however: In the previous edition, when big centrepiece models died like chumps almost immediately, was that fun? Personally, I find having the heroes on the board is more fun than having them in the dead pile or on the shelf. So in the comparison, I prefer the new level of survivability. But I can certainly see ways the game could be more fun if it wasn't quite so extreme.
  18. I played an updated version of my Vampire list (I have enough Battleline to run Vyrkos now!) against Idoneth the other day. We were playing at 2000 points, using the Marking Territory battleplan from GBH2021. It was really nice to see an Idoneth list that didn't just use eels. The Namarti archers were pretty scary, and used Unleash Hell to great effect on the turn that I forgot it existed and charged them with a Vargskyr. There were still nine eels in the list, but even though they're almost indestructible, they really struggled with damage output - at one point a unit charged into my Blood Knights and inflicted no damage. My opponent fell for what I think is becoming the classic blunder in this edition, as a holdover from old habits. I put my Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon into the middle of his lines, and he threw everything at it - turtle, eidolon, eels, thralls - and between Finest Hour and All-Out Defence, he only managed 11 out of 14 wounds. This left his objectives weakly defended, and a lucky long charge from the Blood Knights on turn 3 gave me all four objectives and the instant win. (Side note to GW: instant-win scenarios are terrible, please stop.) We had an echo of the same conversation that's been going on here since the start of the edition, namely that 3+ save monster heroes are too hard to kill. It's putting him off playing, which is a real shame - as he put it, he enjoyed our game but doesn't like the rules. From my perspective, it reinforced my thoughts on how to approach this edition. Enemy heroes are something you just have to put up with, and it's much better to tie them up using as few resources as possible rather than trying to kill them. Meanwhile, playing for the objectives and the battle tactics is the path to victory, since the heroes and monsters can't be everywhere. It actually makes me happier about this edition in general, since I much prefer a game where it's not just about tabling your opponent. That said, I do think the survivability is a little on the extreme side right now. I'd like to see it reduced a bit at the top end - personally I think they should have gone with allowing save bonuses to stack, but capping all saves at 3+ overall. 2+ saves just aren't much fun, and neither are mortal wounds, but that's what everyone is pressured to play in the game's current state.
  19. I'd go at least one step further back, to the point where GW asserted control over the use of their IP well in excess of what the law entitles them to. Restricting fair use and derivative works goes strictly against the spirit and the letter of IP laws. They can totally get away with doing that, because the legal protections against doing so are (deliberately) weak and the legal system exists primarily to defend capital. But that's nevertheless where I would say this conflict "started".
  20. The warehouse is in a region that's under lockdown, so they've closed down operations for the time being. Australia is taking COVID prevention very seriously.
  21. This really depends on what you mean by "okay". Is this content creator breaking the law? No, not in either case. Not even if they monetise the videos or directly advertise their Patreon or solicit donations. These are "derivative" or "transformative" works, which are protected under most IP laws - you can't copyright a "setting", or a "theme", or anything other than the specific form of a work. Does this "protection" make the content creator safe from a civil suit? No, not remotely. If you can afford to defend that suit, you might win the case after a few years in court... got a few million bucks lying around? Most likely you don't, but GW certainly do. Will "fair dealing" IP protection stop GW from getting the creator's YouTube account demonetised, suspended or banned without recourse? Definitely not. Google responds almost immediately to copyright disputes from large corporations without question, and the creator is then forced to go through a potentially months-long process of appeals to get the strike overturned, during which any money their content makes goes to the corporation. From the creator's perspective, GW can choose to annihilate them at any time regardless of whether the IP laws "protect" them. GW don't need the law on their side - they have money, which is much more powerful and relevant. Creators are gambling their livelihood purely on the hope that GW either doesn't notice them, or doesn't care. So no... it's not really "okay".
  22. It would be honestly surprising if a company with the resources of WotC (and its juggernaut parent, Hasbro) and an IP like D&D weren't eyeing off Games Workshop's year-on-year successes and strategising how to take a piece of the wargaming market for themselves. A game system where you can take your favourite D&D character and include them at the head of an army? Seems like such an easy home run. I already know people whose collections of D&D minis vastly outnumber my AoS and 40K armies, and I have no idea what they do with them all.
  23. Heartily agree. If the objectives encourage you into a central moshpit, then you don't need objectives - that's what armies do anyway when left to their own devices. Objectives should require difficult choices, and the commitment of resources away from the main fight. Tectonic Interference is also the mission where the Ghur realm ability (the player going second in the third battle round gets to destroy an objective) is negated, right? Definitely lazy design on that one.
  24. I would definitely like to see more access to higher levels of Rend on elite units, and significantly fewer sources of mortal wounds. Handing out unblockable damage to everyone is definitely not the way to make this work. My main point is that it's a paradigm shift that players will have to get used to - some models will just be beyond your army's ability to kill right now, so how can you work around that instead of bashing your face into that brick wall hoping it will fall down? It shouldn't be, IMO, a case of bringing enough mortal wounds to kill those models anyway. MWs have their place, but spamming them should always be priced to be inefficient overall. Instead, it should be about making tactical decisions other than "That thing needs to die." More Rend of -2 or better in the game wouldn't be about letting you kill the unkillable hero - if you stack every defensive tech you have on someone, they should be damn near unkillable! But it would make it much harder to spread those buffs around to make *multiple* units indestructible. Now that guy is too hard to take down? Cool, that means everything else is super vulnerable - go kill something else.
×
×
  • Create New...