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

Unit1126PLL

Members
  • Content Count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Celestant-Prime

About Unit1126PLL

  • Rank
    Protector

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Maybe this has been answered, but there are WAAAAAAY too many pages to sort through: Any ideas on the best city and loadout for steam tanks? Am looking at 2 'squadrons' where each squadron is 2 tanks, 1 tank commander. So in total, about 1300 points. The options for supporting units are: - 2x Hurricanum, with wizards. This is good because I get lots and lots of casting. It is bad because it basically uses all my points forever. - 2x Hurricanum, 1 wizard, 1 without. Just cheaper but still has a cast. Slightly but not meaningfully cheaper. - 2x Hurricanum, no wizards at all. Cheap enough to be meaningful (i.e. can bring 1 whole new unit for the savings), but loses casting entirely. Boo. or - 2x Lord Ordinators. The cheapest, but far easier to snipe, 0 casting, 0 shooting, and "wholly within 9" is less useful than "within 10" for models that are the size of stanks. I would like to keep some infantry in the army to support the tanks and hold objectives. As for cities, I am looking at: "The Living City": Their outflank rules would allow one squadron plus supporting guy and maybe some infantry to outflank. This could represent the strategic mobility of the untiring steam-tank, as well as providing an additional way to really make sure the targets die. It also heals the tanks passively. "Greywater Fastness": +3" range doesn't help much, but has pretty good access to command points which can fuel the Stank Commanders and aid their squadrons. (4+ to generate 1 per turn, one artefact free, pay 50 pts for 1 more, etc). "Hallowheart": Fantastic healing spell, 5+ to ignore magic seems powerful on a Stank, and a tiny bit of CP generation (4+ each turn). Buffs hurricanums. "Tempest's Eye": Best CP generation (spell, 4+ each turn), but otherwise mediocre. 1st Turn buffs are good but not fantastic, and charging is okay for Stanks but not great. "Anvilguard": Pretty okay opening CP gen with the +d3, but otherwise unimpressive for Stanks IMO. Thoughts?
  2. Does the Steam Tank Hero making steam tanks Battleline override the fact that they are Behemoths? Or are they also still Behemoths and the "army of steam tanks" is a lie?
  3. So the Steam Tank hero upgrade says "any artefacts or command traits only affect the commander's attacks" or something to that effect. For things that don't affect attacks at all (e.g. thermalrider cloak) does this mean they don't work at all? Or do they work normally?
  4. I am secretly praying for a Steam Tank army, but I am waiting with apprehension. We'll see what the dawn brings, but for now, let's ride out the darkness.
  5. Here's a question: When considering abstractions, what Toughness does is "how tough is this model to kill?", right? So, given that save value is exactly the same abstraction, why do we need a pair of different abstractions to answer the same question? GW's Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game has no saves - only a "Defense" value against which the opponent must roll. Things like shields and armor modify the rules (for example, a man might be Defense 3, representing the durability of the human body, a man in armor would be Defense 4 because now he's in leathers, a man in Heavy Armor might be Defense 5 because he's harder to kill still in metal... etc). This is an abstraction of "how tough the model is to kill". Age of Sigmar has saves, but no Toughness or Defense value. Things like shields and armor modify the rules (for example, a man with a metal breastplate might be 5+, a man with full plate might be 4+, and a man with a shield might be 4+ re-rolling 1s to improve his toughness still....). This is also an abstraction of "how tough the model is to kill." Why combine both systems? A 3+ (steam tank) is tougher than a 5+ (handgunner in breastplate). A Defense (or toughness) of 6 (Man in heavy armor with a shield in LOTR) is tougher than a Defense (Toughness) of 3 (Man in normal clothes).
  6. I didn't play at Adepticon, but I do routinely play at local narrative events (e.g. Prime Dominion, Animosity, and NOVA) and the presence of "tournament lists" is significantly depressed... heck, even the tournament factions are absent. Last year at NOVA 2018 in the AOS Narrative we had: Nurgle x2 (pretty competitive but not tournament winning) Myself as Slaanesh (before the battletome obviously) Norsca (Slaves to Darkness) Stormcast Eternals Spiderkin (or whatever the grots on spiders are called) Seraphon ... balls, I can't even remember the rest. The point is that we had a ton of fun. The lists were 500 points for the prologue, 1000 points for the main battles, and 1500 points for the final battles before the last scenario, if I recall correctly. You got a custom hero you could spend in-universe currency to improve, and a custom "airship" that you could also spend the currency on upgrades for. The final mission was an airship race that culminated in the confrontation of a Godbeast descending from the heavens above... *ahem* sorry. I really enjoyed it. I guess the point is that the Adepticon stuff you cite is contrary to my own experience with narrative games, and if true, means I likely would not have enjoyed the event.
  7. Oh, I see. I think this is contextual, which is why I didn't identify the difference. For example, a player might find competitive players tolerable at Club Pick-Up-Game Night or the like, but sneer and be snide if a competitive player shows up at an Organized Narrative Event that spans a weekend. In my case, for example, I'm typically fine with competitive players. But if a player shows up with Gristlegore Terrorgheist spam and 5 models (or whatever) at an Animosity narrative event or at AOS Narrative NOVA 2019, I'll probably be salty, especially if I ask "what's the name of that guy" and they say "Royal Terrorgheist" instead of something like "Ancalagon" or whatever, lol. That's just effortless, and you signed up in advance (taking someone else's spot) for a narrative event....
  8. Against my Ironweld Arsenal list, which is different from @Double Misfire's in a few significant ways: 1) Ignore the cannons. Seriously, unlike @Double Misfire, the cannons in my army are a red herring and rarely do much of the heavy lifting. Instead: 2) Kill the Steam Tanks or their support elements. Eliminating the Lord Ordinator and/or the Celestial Hurricanum will shut down the Steam Tank Deathstar in a hurry. The tanks themselves do most of the heavy lifting.
  9. You only need Battleline for Matched Play, not Narrative Play. And it's not impossible to field an Ironweld Arsenal army, even in Matched Play. The Allegiance is "Mixed Order" technically, but if someone asks me what faction I play, I say the Arsenal. Again, it's a case of GW holding back the narrative players, at least the ones that use Matched Play rules. The first one are not really narrative players. They're competitive players, who happen to like a narrative sideboard. The second one are narrative players who like a competitve sideboard. This is probably the most common class, but I don't think they chase the optimal armies to the degree that you claim they do. They don't want blowouts, but they also don't plan around the S-tier armies exclusively, and so don't feel the need to pursue the army wagon with the same vigor as the first category. I am not sure what the difference between the third category and second category is. Is there some reason the person in the second category would not be making an army that is representative of the books? If they are creating an army that is deliberately designed to compete, they're competitive, if they're creating an army that's deliberately designed to tell stories, they're narrative. If they're somewhere in between, then it's a matter of degree. I would also consider myself a member of the third category. The fourth category is hardcore narrative and is admirable.
  10. Right but we're back to the mindset thing. If someone cares about blowout games, then perhaps semi-competitive is a better fit than fully narrative. Narrative players should want to win, and even win hard, but that should only start at the table during scenario setup. When selecting forces ('listbuilding'), your primary concern should be the narrative of the force and not the ability of the force, I would argue, because that's what a narrative mindset means. That is to say: 1) When selecting armies, choose for lore reasons first and 'winningness' second. If you like the lore of (as in my case) the Ironweld Arsenal the most, then build an Ironweld Arsenal force, even if it isn't as 'winning' as, say, Flesh Eater Courts. 2) When selecting units, choose for lore reasons first and 'winningness' second. If, while building your Ironweld Arsenal list (as in my case), you realize that Celestar Ballistae far far outperform cannons, you still bring cannons, because they're Ironweld Arsenal and you're playing them, not Stormcast. I had a huge debate with myself under GHB2018 if I wanted my mixed-order-but-actually-IA list to have Celestar Ballistae or Cannons as its artillery element. I ended up choosing cannons, because they're narratively more sensible to me than Celestar Ballistae were.
  11. Fair enough. I mean it got its points changed in GHB2019 with an asterisk and everything, so I assumed it was deliberate. I'm still not sure it's any good even if it is deliberate, but I wanted to see what whackyness people could come up with even though it may not be good without the Hedonites keyword.
  12. Has anyone else noticed that the old Exalted Keeper of Secrets warscroll from Monstrous Arcanum is still legal for matched play? What are people's thoughts on this? She's missing the Hedonite keyword, which kinda sucks, but she preserves the ridiculously good Command Ability (which can compensate for not-striking-last if you fail the Locus of Diversion roll or the like) and still has a boatload of attacks...
  13. TBF, I don't chase around what is strong, because I don't care so much about non-blowout games. That is also a mindset thing. If I play against the above list with my Ironweld Arsenal and get creamed, that's fine. Unless the narrative for the game is "I destroy the city you are defending" or something equally harmful to my fluff (in which case we'd have to negotiate before the game, perhaps giving me some city walls or something to aid in the defense), then it doesn't really matter if the Glimmerforge loses yet another army. Part of the whole narrative of the city is that it's unique placement gives it a surprisingly strong industrial base, and so the loss of one army is only meaningful because of the loss of the people. Of course, there are certain character's I'd like to preserve the lives of, so we might negotiate that, but in general outside the characters, using the army as slaughter-fodder is kinda the Glimmerforge's way of doing things.
  14. I don't actually play that list, actually, FYI. But it came up in a discussion yesterday locally, so I used it as an example here. What it sounds like you are truly mad about though isn't the list I've proposed, but rather the imbalances caused by Games Workshop. Here is a reply, with myself taking on the role of this hypothetical player: I'm not writing the backstory to feel better about myself. I don't need to justify myself to other people. I wrote the backstory because I truly and earnestly love the lore of the game, including the idea of a deluded cult of half-naked woman shedding blood on behalf of their God, Morathi Khaine. It's WAAC now, sure, but it won't always be and wasn't always before. Unfortunately, the game is imbalanced enough that even myself, who loves the lore and their army and have no competitive goal (you don't win Best General at narrative events), still makes it unfun for my opponent. But, crucially, that is Games Workshop's fault, not my own. There's nothing unfluffy about the list I proposed above (save perhaps the idea that Wytch Elves will travel around in EXACTLY 30 PERSON GROUPS but that's hardly a critcism exclusive to this army list). Yet it will crush a narrative list built out of components of, say, the Ironweld Arsenal (which is actually what I as a poster play, by the way. I also play Slaanesh narratively, but that's a story for another time). The difference is in mindset, not lists.
×
×
  • Create New...