Jump to content

smartazjb0y

Members
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by smartazjb0y

  1. 21 minutes ago, Groomy said:

    When you say "new", do you mean other than Scions that are haunting us since core book?  :)

    Haha I meant more like the AoS factions where the models already exist and it’s just the cards that they need to be played in Warcry. 

  2. It seems the way going forward is to release new warbands with models, and cards throughout the year, and at the end of the year compile all of that into the annual tome. I kinda would've liked at least one new AoS warband in this year's tome, rather than it mostly being a compilation of all the past cards, but oh well. 

  3. So Warcry warbands can't be battleline but anything about if they can be marked? Would be awesome bringing them into my Khorne army, and the line from the preview saying you could bring your entire StD force into another monogod army does suggest so but it wouldn't be the first time a preview has a somewhat misleading line 

  4. 4 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

    I think it means slotting the StD units into an existing Blades of Khorne/Maggotkin/Hedonites/Disciples army alongside all their god-specific units vs. taking an entirely StD force and using the allegiance abilities, etc, from those battletomes as you like.

    Ruleswise it's the same thing but from a marketing or army management POV, i.e. what can you buy, what can you do with these models, I can see how GW wants to make the difference clear. It's answering two different questions really: "can I add these to my existing monogod battletome force?" and "Can I run a fully StD force that uses monogod allegiance abilties?"

    Ah yeah I guess I see the distinction there, though I did get caught up on the rules being basically the same since it's just based on Mark of Chaos.

    Wonder if that then means they're adding the Mark of Chaos trait to the Warcry Warbands then

  5. 5 hours ago, Sleboda said:

    I agree with you on the side note. I've never understood why people play Warhammer with the game itself as the biggest draw. The setting and models are far ahead of the game in terms of quality.

    I don't think it's hard to understand why people like the game; a competitive community doesn't arise from people who all enjoy modeling and painting more than the game. AoS 1e had great models, but people generally had a negative reaction to it because of the game aspect. AoS 2e is doing really well and I don't think it's because 2e's models are leaps and bounds above 1e. 

    • Like 1
  6. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but the end of the article doesn't seem to make much sense. 

    Quote

    What’s more, all of your god-marked units can be used in a Tzeentch, Nurgle, Khorne or Slaanesh force, so if you fancy trying some different allegiance abilities, you can!

    It works the other way around, too. Thanks to the Mark of Chaos keyword, you could field your Slaves to Darkness army as a Khorne force one day, then a Tzeentch army the next by using their associated battletomes and allegiance abilities!

    Aren't both those describing the exact same thing? Not sure how "it works the other way around" 

  7. 4 hours ago, Spears said:

    Purely on theme rather than rules are people envisaging using one type of warcry warband in their armies or embracing the undivided aspect and fielding a mash up of several.

    I like a few of them so definitely gonna go the varied route and having a mashup. They're all pretty different and unique and I actually like that in an army 

  8. 4 hours ago, Lucentia said:

    The warcry book does not contain the stat blocks or ability tables for any of the war bands, you would still need to pick up one of the warcry branded warband boxes to get those cards in order to play.

    Are you talking about the Warcry core book or the new tome? I thought the whole point of the tome was to replace the cards, especially since the cards are out of print for the AoS factions 

  9. 5 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

    I think this proves the theory correct that the armies that are selling well and keeping aos going are the armies that were already present during the old world and have been expanded on and that the new armies are not as strongly supported. KO, Ironjawz, FYreslayers IDK, etc. 

     

    Otherwise why on earth would they bring back the old world??? Just to annoy even more the people thst burnt all their models on pyres and left the hobby forever??? 

    Definitely don't think that's the case at all. AoS is more successful than WHFB and that's not due to old armies. It could easily be relegated for Forge World like Horus Heresy, which definitely is not a case of "AoS is only good because of old armies!" 

    • Like 6
  10. 2 hours ago, ANevskyUSA said:

    Also, don't discount the importance of the tactile. Would using a random number generator on one's phone feel as good as rolling a bunch of dice? I think most would prefer the latter.

    I think rolling dice and flipping through books are very different things

  11. 2 hours ago, ANevskyUSA said:

    I have a Dispossessed army. Now that Cities of Sigmar has come out, is my army obsolete? In particular, Warriors, Quarrelers and Thunderers are not in the new Battletome. Does this mean that they are out of the game? Or can I still field these units in a Dispossessed army using the Allegiance abilities from the General's Handbook?

    If it's in the GHB you can still use them, but you're at the mercy of whether or not they're placed in the 2020 GHB

  12. 45 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

    There actually is language in the rules that forces you to attack if you are within range of the enemy in melee. 

     

     

    capture.jpg

    I don't think you understood me, because that's exactly what I said...

    "there's no language like in the melee attacks that says "every unit that can attack MUST attack." 

    My point was, the melee attacks specifically has language that says every unit that can attack must attack, but that specific language does not exist for army setup. 

    • Like 1
  13. 8 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

    I never once suggested ambushing them later. I don’t know where that came from.  I understand the idea of not setting up a unit is a little out there..tossing around the word cheating is a little hyperbolic. I was just asking for thoughts. Especially for a unit that is essentially free. 

    Didnt mean to rustle people’s jimmies. 

    I think there's nothing that explicitly says you can or cannot do what you're suggesting; there's no language like in the melee attacks that says "every unit that can attack MUST attack." But I'd say it's probably against the spirit of the game and would probably be the type of thing that your opponent would feel is wrong.  I'd venture to guess if someone sent in an email to GW they'd clarify that in a FAQ that you can't do what you're suggesting. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...