Sleboda
-
Posts
3,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sleboda
-
-
I just thought of one based on convenience, experience, and style of the game.
Rule that models never block line of sight to other models.
If it's all supposed to be a constantly moving affair (thus allowing the various shooting/combat things), why not abstract to say shots are taken at a good moment?
Also, at Adepticon I did not see one single instance of people checking LoS through models. It seems it's how people play.
-
Love the concept of the cards ... need better design for bigger fonts.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jamopower said:
The elves in the Lord of the rings were alo shooting their opponnts from point blank, not some other advancing orcs from the distance.
They did both, iirc. Shoot close and also save that clumsy ranger way over there. ☺
Not that LotR has to influence this game.
It just seems to me that the design of this game, from the ground up, is cinematic and loose.
Tightened/restricted systems are also fun, but there are lots of other games like that. Do we really need to remove some of the uniqueness of AoS just to make it more like so many others?
Gimme my crazy fun here, and I'll play tighter games elsewhere.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Jamopower said:
I think a limitation, that shooting while within 3" of enemy would only be allowed to enemies within 3" could be good for the game
I disagree.
I feel like that would present a subtle shift in the style of the game. Right now everything feels, I duuno, bold. Decisive. Action-packed.
All this wild, caution to the wind stuff is going on. TBH, it feels like the best action scenes of the Lord of the Rings movies. Swords and arrows twirling and zinging about impossibly, but awesomely.
Put in that buffer and you make it feel more cautious and calculated. Not a fan of the idea.
-
1
-
-
On 3/29/2017 at 6:47 AM, Auticus said:
Lest we forget matched play is supposed to focus entirely on balance and getting free points is the opposite of balance.
It's a tough line to draw, though. Some things have reinforcement-linked abilities that can't be separated from the model and they do still have matched points. While some might decry the "free" points summoning gives, it's fair to also say these things are overcosted for matched play.
My example works be Morghasts. Their Herald ability increases the power of summoners. One would think this ability has a cost built in. If you do not set aside points in your army for summoning (a highly risky and discouraging prospect in matched play), the Herald ability, and its point cost, are wasted.
I think there needs to be a better way to cost this sort of thing in matched play.
-
Soulbound Chains.
Imprisoned Stormcast souls, tormented by Nagash as punishment for defying his will. Their rage is channeled intro blasts of energy as they struggle to rejoin Sigmar.
-
2
-
-
On 3/24/2017 at 7:43 PM, Lavy said:
tomb kings suffered for years because they were never updated properly, suffering from "codex creep" and neglect from GW.
I don't believe that was the issue. I'm not a believer in power creep. What the problem was was having a poorly equipped designer make the book. The 8th edition TK book was dead on arrival. It's not that other stuff got better, is that TK stunk from Day One.
It's a testament to the awesomeness of the models that people played that junk at all.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, roberto said:
NOW yer' talkin'.
OMG the conversions... This WILL happen. A forgeworld giant with one of those on is head is in my future.
-
5 hours ago, thediceabide said:
You measure base to base.
Or model to model. Surely some of your models have big pokey sticks, right?
Or climb walls...
Or climb trees...
Or... you'll figure it out.
-
1 hour ago, Erdemo86 said:
Looks like made in 1990...
Actually, to me it looks fan-made.
-
I'm thinking the reference to a new game is Epic.
-
1 hour ago, Darth Alec said:
I'd much rather see the new factions be entirely new, unshackled to the old aesthetic.
Thought of the day: The aelfs are now the only models from the Silver Tower set without a proper release. That means that they are either based on pre-existing designs, or will be the defining models for a new set.
Aha! This is the inroad! 40K and AoS merge as the shattered Eldar leave the stars and settle in the Mortal Realms, led by T,T, & M.
Maybe?
-
Just discovered this thread.
Today's stuff.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, StealthKnightSteg said:
Concerning the validation of "missing" battalion scrolls as I see it: the whole Matched play points list in the SE (new) book invalidates the whole GHB v1.0 lists of SE and SE Extremis. In my opinion any other reasoning is just rules lawyering to keep your hopes up on keeping out of balance stuff viable
Maybe, but boy, it surely would be nice if GW would maintain a "currently valid" list somewhere, wouldn't it?
It's getting more and more fractured and difficult to follow all the time.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:
Oh come on now. We don't even have the full book.
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited as heck for this. I'm just feeling Brad's pain. He bought an army, a whole army, because of its rules. He felt safe in the purchase, I would guess, since the army and its rules were very, very new. Plus, GW had shown a change in philosophy in many ways lately, including not invalidating purchases.
Yes, he can still use his new models, just as people could still use the Btetonnians for several editions after they got left behind, but (and only he can answer this), would he have bought that collection is he knew its rules were going away in a few weeks?
-
6 hours ago, Rhellion said:
I bought and assembled an entire army in the last 2 weeks based on units and a battalion that no longer do what they did a week ago.
Maybe this is the new Squatting.
Sucks.
-
5 hours ago, Krieger said:
2. A natural roll of 6 always succeeds
6. Units in combat shouldn't be able to shoot at units outside of their own current combat.
2. Isn't kind of a fundamental concept of the game that you need to get to a 6 after modifications for lots (and lots and lots) or effects in the game to kick in? And would it not stand to reason that a lot of balance/rules design/point gets based on this idea? Wouldn't tossing this rule on top of it have faaaaar reaching, unforeseen consequences?
No sir, I don't like it!
6. Why? How would you adjust the point values of all missile troops to account for this loss of an ability that was clearly part of the design of the game and thus these units?
-
3 hours ago, Chikout said:
Forget all this 40k nonsense. I want to see page 8
I want to see the current issue of my subscription that has yet to arrive ... again.
-
4 hours ago, shinros said:
Speaking as a slaanesh fan, slaanesh has too much baggage with the fanbase most people who are aware of fluff know that slaanesh is not really about sex. Yet people always think of that when it comes to slaanesh Personally I see this as GW's opportunity to redefine slaanesh and take some of the dark eldar's angle on excess and it's honestly easier to market. I could be wrong but that's just my theory.
I was one of the authors of the Tome of Excess for FFG. We had a writing brief that made a big point of this. We were told that sexytime was only a slice of the whole, and that we should include much, much more than just that when describing Slaanesh and his/her predalictions.
Since FFG was taking their direction from GW, it's safe to say that whatever GW had in mind for this will go far beyond just T&A.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, DynamicCalories said:
I am assuming from my extremely limited knowledge of engineering that it is either some kind of steering thing... or more likely a vault door?
The hatch to access the inner workings of the Steamhead Ancestral Titan
-
2
-
-
I will buy the warscroll cards for this and all armies. Fantastic game aid!
-
3
-
-
Even if they add options, you still can just play with what you want or even use the Death GA book.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Turragor said:
See I paint each scale like it's a small flat area.I do too. It's just easier to make the blends over a smaller area.
-
1 hour ago, Turragor said:
These standard chargers should be easier than the Dracothian Guard to paint imo. Fewer scales and less armour on the mount. Big flat skin areas.
Interestingly, I find the opposite to be true for me. Large flat areas require much more careful blending than areas broken up into sections, like scales.
Give me a saurus to paint over a marine any day! ☺
-
4
-
How do you guys treat True Line of Sight?
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Sleboda
That ignores the idea that you cannot simply remove terrain from the table. Would you, for example, remove two walls of a house to allow your models to move through it?
Don't think of them as "trees." Think of them as "physical barriers to movement," which you already clearly do since you want to move them to allow movement! ☺
My treelord cannot move through his own Sylvaneth woods because the trees in the woods model prevent it - just like walls in a house or the pillars in an arcane ruins.
Treating woods as some sort of abstracted area terrain that "actually" have lots of trees is old thinking, Warhammer thinking.
In AoS, the models are the models are the models. That *is* one orruk. That *is* one rock. That *is* one tree.
This leads us to the simple true line of sight rule. It's not "unclear" what you can and cannot shoot. Such is the beauty of the 4-pager. Economical rules can be taken at face value and played simply.
You actually need to start making up stuff to deny the rules that are there. Things like asking (no offense to earlier poster) "would he get hurt by his spear or cloak being shot" require needless invention and assumption that your imagined "fluffy" justifucation to break the rule had more validity than both the actual rule and someone else's imagination. For instance, I could say that when that spear gets shot. The warrior takes a fragment of the shattered tip in the eye and falls down in agony, or that he has lost his weapon and some combat effectivess represented by the wound he's taken...or I could just apply the rule as printed and get on wirh a fun, clear, simple game.
Having said that, I'd be in favor of a rule saying models never block line of sight to other models. It's how 98% of my opponents play anyway - even the ones I played at Adepticon - and it makes sense to me given the dynamic nature of the game.
As to terrain, make bigger terrain.
Also, removing terrain and thinking is ok because it had no effect on the game means you've skipped a cool section of the rules with all the terrain effects.
Gah! One more thing. Don't use someone else being a dirty tool as justifucation to say the rules are in need of charge. Yes, one could model flying dudes low to the ground and keep their rules. Go ahead, see how many games you'd get against me if you did that.