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

The World Tree

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

111 Celestant-Prime

About The World Tree

  • Rank
    Protector

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm not convinced it is imbalanced in any situation except Slaanesh. Unless I'm forgetting something. Slaanesh would have been so much better designed if it was solely based on wounds inflicted on them. Then the depravity points aren't so variable and can be better baked into unit costs. It still retains the fluffiness of paint infliction.
  2. Thanks for the write up. I definitely agree with you in many ways. I played a similar list vs a Bonesplittas army with 3-4x the number of wounds I had and was stunned to see it all dead by turn 5. We definitely got more brutal. I have to think that you were not playing with much terrain. In my experience, you can very rarely squeeze in more than two woods on a table. This really limits all those advantages that you rightly identify. It makes me increasingly think Dreadwood may be the way forward.
  3. They wouldn't be teasing if it wasn't in the near future
  4. Honestly I think that CP and artefact are worth 100. The artefacts we have are incredible and really strengthen other aspects of the army.
  5. Ahh, wouldn't it be lovely to have useable battalions!
  6. Some of the bonus to charge command traits/spiteswarm could combo well with their ability. You'd need lots of command points, which will be a challenge. Definitely will want an aetherquartz brooch in there too. Tree Revenants could be quite potent as assassins in this list, I suppose. (I'm working from memory on the Ironbark abilities here!)
  7. I tend to agree. The clear design problem with depravity is how variable it is by opponent - if they raise summoning requirements it may hurt them significantly vs. majority 1 wound armies. In some ways I'd prefer if it was about the pain inflicted on slaanesh units (not just non-lethal) - that way it is a controllable variable and retains the theme. It also makes it less punishing for opponents who are already struggling in a game.
  8. There are always models that used to be sold. Is it reasonable to expect GW to stock every single model they've ever produced? The communication on this has been very poor, no argument there.
  9. These models have existed for many years. Those who have been in the hobby for years have had plenty of chance to purchase. I think they are right to overhaul older armies to develop new - some of the unit choices are odd, granted - so long as the rules remain supported. They are matched play legal per GHB19.
  10. Just because the models are going away doesn't mean the rules are - they are still matched play legal.
  11. Kurnoth Hunters at range are fine. Nothing spectacular. Their regular shooting stat line is lacklustre for their points - investing all that effort (Glade choice, artefact, Arch-Revenant) into boosting them seems like a wasted opportunity - better to have spent it on combat Hunters or Durthu. The Wyldwood LOS blocking also works against their usage. I say this as a Sylvaneth and Stormcast player.
  12. I suspect CoS and Orruks weren't originally going to be a double week, but the Sylvaneth delay probably lead to this. We likely would already have at least one already.
  13. The beastmen could be a part of a themed chaos warband... there is one in the Tzeentch one after all.
  14. It is fairly obvious that the chamber dedicated to scouting is being used in the skirmish game set in uncharted territory...
  15. I honestly think a lot of players don't have them - they've rarely been used. Also, with the close confines the models won't work very well from a usability POV.
×
×
  • Create New...