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

Sleboda

Subscriber
  • Content Count

    2,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Sleboda last won the day on November 27 2019

Sleboda had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,123 Celestant-Prime

2 Followers

About Sleboda

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I was painting more red on my guys, and this showed up. Ooo! Freaky!
  2. I'm not a huge defender of Dead Scribe or his preferred style of play (though I have no ill will toward him (her?)), but I think it's a bit rude to make that statement. There's nothing wrong, or "really sad", about that way of selecting forces. There's room for all of us here. Except elf players.
  3. The thing is, though, it leaves open some interesting narratives if you allow it. Perhaps the named orruk character has had his leadership position challenged by an upstart and he is willing to let him show off a bit before he thrashes him in front of the rest of the boyz. Or Morathi wants to allow a rival to lead and expose her flaws in preparation for taking her down. Maybe Thanquol is letting another be general so he gets killed while Thanquol is safe further back. Maybe ... You get the point. Yes, some are doing it for rules reasons, but some are into a story.
  4. Oddly enough, I think that's what bothers me about them. Lol! I've come to expect so much crazy from AoS, that these guys feel sort of 'meh' to me.
  5. True. Instead they may be thinking "why am I playing this army still?" Worse yet, potential new Seraphon players who may have been in the fence would be well served to pick a different army since there is much old stuff in old, fragile, defect-laden materials. I don't hold out much hope for the future of this army, unfortunately. I'll get the terrain piece, though!
  6. I like the Nurgle warband. The 40K stuff looked neat, especially as conversion fodder. The elves are pretty, but not remotely interesting to me. Teclis himself, in particular, while clearly a technical achievement, doesn't say "Teclis" to me for some reason. My disappointment over the lack of new Saurus pretty much kills the excitement I had for Seraphon. Big, big bummer. Overall, a much appreciated reveal! Thanks, GW. I may not have personally gone gah gah over most of it, but that's down to personal tastes. Lastly, congrats to Alex Gonzalez on the Hero recognition. He deserves it. Big time.
  7. No apology needed (though appreciated). I'll be clear as well. I do buy most of my models to play the game(s). Some, though, I get just to paint. Plus, even the models I buy for gaming are rarely purchased based on their rules. I tend to get ideas for themes based on the lore, the look of the models, and/or some silly idea in my head (like doing a Nurgle+Slaanesh army with characters named after sexual diseases). Do I get disappointed when the rules are awful (like old TK or current Khorne)? Sure I do! I just usually tend to find this out well after purchasing the army. Incidentally, I bought several thousand points of Bonereapers before having read the rules. For once I got lucky! 😁😉
  8. In fairness, it should be pointed out that plenty of people buy models with zero interest in their rules, just wanting to paint a cool model. I've bought plenty of models for armies and games I don't even play. I'm unaware of their rules. They are just really cool models.
  9. I'm actually starting to believe that seraphon will get squatted.
  10. Back in the day that glass might have been a counts-as elf dragon or something. Now it's just a part of my painting system (I always paint better when a few drinks get me to stop thinking and start putting colors on little plastic people).
  11. This is what is assembled at the moment . Stuff in the works. Some waiting for priming, some for bases. Loving this project! Second photo is the stuff still in boxes. So no shame.
  12. I don't want to derail this lovely thread, so if this needs expansive discussion, let's make a new one. That said, I'm curious about what you dislike here. I felt like even the original 1.0 4-pager had all the terrain rules you needed if you just applied what was there, and 2.0 hand-holds for those who wanted that. What more is needed that wouldn't needlessly complicate things?
  13. Just a note on that - My desire to see warscroll cards go unchanged would diminish greatly, if not entirely go away, if GW treated bad rules (confusing, wrongly-worded, unfair, etc.) as defective products. Their policy on replacing missing or miscast parts in kits is to be commended. They really take responsibility for physical defects and the support they offer to replace them is stellar. If it were the same with rules (as I believe it should be), then they could acknowledge a "miscast" rule on the card that you purchased and replace it with the fixed one for free. Some may balk at this idea at first, but I think it has merit. They sold you a product which they realized after the fact, once it saw plentiful use in the wild, had a defect. Replace it free of charge. Plenty of other industries issue recalls for bad products. For instance, when your car has a bad seal on a gasket but it did not show up until the car got sold to the public and thus used widely (or, in other words, tested by many more people), the manufacturer will have you bring in the car for free service to replace the gasket with a working one. Why not have shops get copies of fixed warscroll cards and tell people to bring in their old ones for a free replacement?
  14. I'll probably come back with more later, but for now: Yes, all the good things mentioned above are indeed good. The hobby as a complete package is in great shape. My biggest improvement would be three-fold. 1. Ensure that all rules that are "meant" to work the same way are worded the same way. There's no need to use different words to describe the same effect in different books. 2. Be more thoughtful about word choice to avoid confusion. For example, I think we should not have Wounds and Mortal Wounds. Even the process for determining when and how you 'wound' a model was/is confusing and needed more explanation than it should. The word "Wound" should be akin to a key word. To get a little weird about it, you should be able to understand and follow the process no matter what word is used. Instead of Wound and Mortal Wound, you could have Blarg and Fribbie. They are simply placeholder words to call up the rule and processes. Granted, Wound is more intuitive ... which is why having MORTAL Wound is confusing. We want to say that when a Mortal Wound is caused, rules for Wounds also apply, which they don't (not all of them, anyway, but some, which is more confusing). Anyway, the point is that words matter and I'd like to see more thought given to which ones are chosen. 3. Clarity. I suppose this is just a summary of the whole thing. I know that not all things will be caught, but I think (know) that GW leans too heavily on the "if we made everything clear, the rules would be encyclopediac" but it's just not so. Not to repeat what I've said in other threads, but when we, as playtesters, used to suggest alternate wordings on rules to close loopholes, the suggested solutions were often _shorter_ than the more vague rule. So, all things said, I think the hobby is in great shape (I don't, btw, buy into power creep, intentional or otherwise), but a little more attention to clarity would be lovely.
×
×
  • Create New...